Search (157 results, page 1 of 8)

0.056749947 = product of:
  0.113499895 = sum of:
    0.113499895 = sum of:
      0.063988514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063988514 = score(doc=6966,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 6966, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6966)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=6966,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6966, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6966)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the technique used to study hypertext systems from a very general point of view, focus on monitoring searchers' behaviour, predict the estimation of the ultimate goals of the searchers, and estimate the searchers' determination to find these goals. The components are combined via a Markov chain approach so as to study information retrieval in general and hypertext (hypermedia) in particular. Demonstrates how these estimations can be used to assist searchers during their searching process and presents the derivation of a relevance function for documents, based on these estimations

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.05087889 = product of:
  0.10175778 = sum of:
    0.10175778 = sum of:
      0.0522464 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0522464 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a recently composite view of several user studies in information retrieval. Contains personal conclusions and speculations based on these studies, rather than formal statistical results, which so often are not comparable from 1 experiment to another. Suggests a taxonomy of user characteristics for such studies, in order to make results comparable. Discusses methods and effects of user training, then manner of expression of a query or information need, conduct of a search, use of the system command language or its equivalent, analysis by the user of retrieved information, and user satisfaction with outcome. Concludes with suggestions for system design and experimental methodology

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22

0.040535677 = product of:
  0.081071354 = sum of:
    0.081071354 = sum of:
      0.045706082 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045706082 = score(doc=2339,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.036342062 = product of:
  0.072684124 = sum of:
    0.072684124 = sum of:
      0.037318856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037318856 = score(doc=2637,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2637, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2637)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a qualitative research study that examined professional image users' knowledge of, and interest in using, content-based image retrieval (CBIR) systems in an attempt to clarify when and where CBIR methods might be applied. The research sought to determine the differences in the perceived usefulness of CBIR technologies among image user groups from several domains and explicate the reasons given regarding the utility of CBIR systems for their professional tasks. Twenty participants (archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists), individuals who rely on images of cultural materials in the performance of their work, took part in the study. The findings of the study reveal that interest in CBIR methods varied among the different professional user communities. Individuals who showed an interest in these systems were primarily those concerned with the formal characteristics (i.e., color, shape, composition, and texture) of the images being sought. In contrast, those participants who expressed a strong interest in images of known items, images illustrating themes, and/or items from specific locations believe concept-based searches to be the most direct route. These image users did not see a practical application for CBIR systems in their current work routines.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:32:25

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4193, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4193)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4193, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4193)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The development of visual retrieval methods requires information about user interaction with images, including their description and categorization. This article presents the development of a categorization model for magazine images based on two user studies. In Study 1, we elicited 10 main classes of magazine image categorization criteria through sorting tasks with nonexpert and expert users (N=30). Multivariate methods, namely, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering, were used to analyze similarity data. Content analysis of category names gave rise to classes that were synthesized into a categorization framework. The framework was evaluated in Study 2 by experts (N=24) who categorized another set of images consistent with the framework and found it to be useful in the task. Based on the evaluation study the framework was solidified into a model for categorizing magazine imagery. Connections between classes were analyzed both from the original sorting data and from the evaluation study and included into the final model. The model is a practical categorization tool that may be used in workplaces, such as magazine editorial offices. It may also serve to guide the development of computational methods for image understanding, selection of concepts for automatic detection, and approaches to support browsing and exploratory image search.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:09:26

0.02475569 = product of:
  0.04951138 = sum of:
    0.04951138 = product of:
      0.09902276 = sum of:
        0.09902276 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09902276 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.02475569 = product of:
  0.04951138 = sum of:
    0.04951138 = product of:
      0.09902276 = sum of:
        0.09902276 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09902276 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.024701476 = product of:
  0.049402952 = sum of:
    0.049402952 = sum of:
      0.021110734 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021110734 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.028292218 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028292218 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the significant findings from author's PhD: "Factors affecting the end-use of electronic databases in public libraries." Public libraries have a wide range of different types of users who, unlike academic or special library users, are not necessarily information-trained (see Coles, 1998). Whereas the academic, special library user may have specific information needs that can be met by electronic sources, public library users do not necessarily have such specific information needs that can easily be identified and met. Most user surveys have tended to concentrate on the searching and retrieval aspect of information seeking behaviour, whereas this study's user survey focused more on how people perceived and related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). It was not how people searched a particular electronic source, in this case CD-ROM, that was of prime interest but rather whether or not people actually used them at all and the reasons why people did or did not use electronic media. There were several reasons the study looked at CD-ROM specifically. Firstly, CD-ROM is a well established technology, most people should be familiar with CD-ROM/multimedia. Secondly, CD-ROM was, at the start of the study, the only open access electronic media widely available in public libraries. As well as examining why public library users chose to use electronic sources, the paper looks at the types of CD-ROM databases used both in the library and in general Also examined are what sort of searches users carried out. Where appropriate some of the problems inherent in studying end-users in public libraries and the difficulty in getting reliable data, are discussed. Several methods were used to collect the data. I wished to avoid limiting research to a small sample of library sites, the aim was to be as broad in scope as possible. There were two main groups of people 1 wished to look at: non-users as well as CD-ROM users

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28

0.021219164 = product of:
  0.04243833 = sum of:
    0.04243833 = product of:
      0.08487666 = sum of:
        0.08487666 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08487666 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.021110734 = product of:
  0.042221468 = sum of:
    0.042221468 = product of:
      0.084442936 = sum of:
        0.084442936 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084442936 = score(doc=2284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 2284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.021110734 = product of:
  0.042221468 = sum of:
    0.042221468 = product of:
      0.084442936 = sum of:
        0.084442936 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084442936 = score(doc=2285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 2285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021110734 = product of:
  0.042221468 = sum of:
    0.042221468 = product of:
      0.084442936 = sum of:
        0.084442936 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084442936 = score(doc=4349,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports research that explored children's information retrieval behavior using an OPAC in an elementary school library. The study considers the impact of a variety of factors including user characteristics, the school setting, interface usability, and information access features on children's information retrieval success and breakdown. The study reports the overall patterns of children's behavior that influence success and breakdown in information retrieval as well as findings about the intentions, moves, plans, strategies, and search terms of children in grades one through six

0.021110734 = product of:
  0.042221468 = sum of:
    0.042221468 = product of:
      0.084442936 = sum of:
        0.084442936 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084442936 = score(doc=8695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 8695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=8695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.018659428 = product of:
  0.037318856 = sum of:
    0.037318856 = product of:
      0.07463771 = sum of:
        0.07463771 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07463771 = score(doc=1103,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

0.018471893 = product of:
  0.036943786 = sum of:
    0.036943786 = product of:
      0.07388757 = sum of:
        0.07388757 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07388757 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.018471893 = product of:
  0.036943786 = sum of:
    0.036943786 = product of:
      0.07388757 = sum of:
        0.07388757 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07388757 = score(doc=3263,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 3263, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on a study that contrdicts the hypothesis that building detailed subject knowledge into search system improves retrieval. A group with a background in molecular biology performed the same judgements when considering document retrieval as another group without subject knowledge. The untrained panel performed better than any of the members of the trained panel and almost at the level of the trained panel as a whole. Explains the method which uses the probability ranking principle to measure retrieval

0.018471893 = product of:
  0.036943786 = sum of:
    0.036943786 = product of:
      0.07388757 = sum of:
        0.07388757 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07388757 = score(doc=3265,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 3265, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers what elicitation or requests for information search intermediaries make of users with information requests during an information retrieval interaction - including prior to and during an information retrieval interaction - and for what purpose. Reports a study of elicitations during 40 mediated information retrieval interactions. Identifies a total of 1.557 search intermediary elicitations within 15 purpose categories. The elicitation purposes of search intermediaries included requests for information on search terms and strategies, database selection, search procedures, system's outputs and relevance of retrieved items, and users' knowledge and previous information seeking. Investigates the transition sequences from 1 type of search intermediary elicitation to another. Compares these findings with results from a study of end user questions

0.018471893 = product of:
  0.036943786 = sum of:
    0.036943786 = product of:
      0.07388757 = sum of:
        0.07388757 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07388757 = score(doc=5216,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5216, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A cross-disciplinary examination of the user behaviors involved in seeking and evaluating data is surprisingly absent from the research data discussion. This review explores the data retrieval literature to identify commonalities in how users search for and evaluate observational research data in selected disciplines. Two analytical frameworks, rooted in information retrieval and science and technology studies, are used to identify key similarities in practices as a first step toward developing a model describing data retrieval.

0.018282432 = product of:
  0.036564864 = sum of:
    0.036564864 = product of:
      0.07312973 = sum of:
        0.07312973 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07312973 = score(doc=3207,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 3207, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the necessity of providing new methods of research into user information retrieval behaviour. Notes that the user using the catalogue via the Internet and communicating exclusively with the computer system, disappears from the librarian's direct view. Implementing adequate software facilities in some sense broadens research prospects and improves its quality. Describes research carried out at the Jagiellonian Library, Poland, into the extent of use of OPAC retrieval facilities, throught the application of software that records all information retrieval commands